github_list_pull_request_files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It only states routing and authentication details, which are generic. It fails to disclose that the tool is read-only, requires a pull request identifier in the arguments, or how errors are handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short (three sentences) and avoids fluff, but most content is generic routing info that doesn't help understand the tool. It is concise at the expense of informativeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool is a list operation likely requiring a pull request ID, the description lacks essential details about input and output. Even though an output schema exists, the input is woefully under-specified, making the description incomplete for correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats that `arguments` is a JSON string. It provides no information about the expected keys (e.g., owner, repo, pull_number), value formats, or examples, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description merely restates the tool name as 'list_pull_request_files' without explaining what it lists (files of a pull request). It adds no definition beyond the name itself, making it vague for an agent unfamiliar with GitHub's API.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like `github_list_pull_requests` or `github_get_pull_request`. There are no prerequisites, context conditions, or exclusion criteria given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.